Thought the below excerpt from today's Sports Illustrated online gave an interesting perspective and makes for a compelling arguement:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
With Roger Federer and Tiger Woods both notching impressive victories over the weekend, the natural question arises -- Who is more dominant? My answer: It depends. If we rely on the straightforward, dictionary definition of "dominant," Federer is your man. After winning six of the past seven Grand Slams, you'd have to give Federer at least an 85-90 percent chance of winning any non-French Open major that started tomorrow. Even the mighty Tiger would be, perhaps, a 50/50 choice. By that measure, Federer's iron grip over his sport (including a 36-match winning streak) is clearly greater than Woods'.

Yet when placed against the context of their sports, Tiger's triumphs are slightly more incredible. Tennis is a one-on-one contest, like boxing, in which a competitor can directly affect (and dominate) his opponent. If Federer is on his game, he can hit the ball where his opponent can do nothing with it. If Federer plays well, his opponent's chance to perform well is directly diminished. There's a reason why tennis (and boxing) lend themselves to long winning streaks and stretches of sheer dominance. Five tennis players, two men and three women, have won the Grand Slam a total of six times, as recently as Steffi Graf in 1988. In addition, nine men have won three of the four Grand Slam tournaments in a calendar year a total of 11 times; eight women have turned that trick a total of 17 times.

In golf, on the other hand, all players compete against the course. If Tiger hits a terrific shot, for example, it doesn't simultaneously knock his nearest pursuer's ball into the rough. It might not seem it from the way his rivals often shrink when he's on the leaderboard, but Tiger can't directly impact his competitors' performance. There's a reason that golf's Grand Slam has been won just once, in 1930 by Bobby Jones, and that included two amateur titles. Only twice has a golfer won three of the four professional majors in the same calendar year -- Ben Hogan in 1953 and Woods in 2000. Golf, unlike tennis, simply does not lend itself to dominance. Against this context, the fact that Woods has won 11 of the past 29 majors (37.9 percent) he has played trumps Federer's admittedly awe-inspiring run of 10 majors in his last 15 tries (66.7 percent).

1. You play against a course, not a person
2. You sweat only because you are wearing Khaki Pants in the summer
3. Does the heart rate go overboard at all ? Maybe when anticipating the 20' putt ? Maybe when John Daly tried to walk up a green ?

Golf is a fun game, but not a sport.

-

On topic ?

Federer is the more dominant. He has to actually fight thourgh to the final with 7 other people trying to physically stop him.

Tiger get's to play 4 times, the same course, with no obstacles. It must be nice to be able to hit the same shot, over and over again and on top of that, practice the course.

Golf a sport. Pffffffffffffffffffffttttttttttttttttttttttttttt. It's an insult to call it a sport for all of the atheletes

1. You play against a course, not a person
2. You sweat only because you are wearing Khaki Pants in the summer
3. Does the heart rate go overboard at all ? Maybe when anticipating the 20' putt ? Maybe when John Daly tried to walk up a green ?

Golf is a fun game, but not a sport.

-

On topic ?

Federer is the more dominant. He has to actually fight thourgh to the final with 7 other people trying to physically stop him.

Tiger get's to play 4 times, the same course, with no obstacles. It must be nice to be able to hit the same shot, over and over again and on top of that, practice the course.

Golf a sport. Pffffffffffffffffffffttttttttttttttttttttttttttt. It's an insult to call it a sport for all of the atheletes

Hit the same shot over and over again...like a serve, forehand or backhand...really?!
No obstacles...like trees, lakes, sand...really?!
Practice the course...like hitting balls over and over again with a machine or partner...really?!

Anyone who's played both equally will say golf is tougher. A tennis court has the same dimensions...every time, everywhere. Try hitting a 2 inch ball using a club with a 3 inch face into a 4 inch hole 500yards away. Oh yeah, easy. You've obviously never played golf.

As for who is more dominant...my only reply is that they both dominate as much as one can dominate their respective sport. 2 different sports. No way to compare.

But, FiveO, how many of those guys won multiple majors in one year?
I'm no golf fan, but the all-time list of major winners is rather small compared to tennis, so it must be harder to dominate. tennis has guys that
won 8 majors, 3 guys that won 7, 4 that won 10+, etc.

what are the numbers with golf? Its Niklaus with 18, Tiger with what 10? then what? how many guys won even 4 or 5 in their career, not many I guess.

and golf doesn't have any open era controversy with it, so the best were always allowed to play. with that in mind they should have much higher totals. guys like laver, rosewall were still able to win 8-11 majors with out competing in many majors. many are certain we'd have many players with more than 14 if there wasn't that amateur/pro issue.
the best golfers didn't have that issue & didn't miss many majors in their prime years, so why aren't there more multi-winners? because its that hard to do.

Tiger has been more dominant throughout his career but Roger has been more dominant in the last 3 to 4 years than Tiger or any other athlete for that matter. Tiger will probably win more majors than Roger only be the sheer fact that he will play a lot longer.

__________________
The significant problems we face cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them.

I agree with the op, there aren't as many dominant golfers as tennis players historically, and that is telling. lets' compare approx last 39 years-the time of the open era in tennis(& I am not really into to golf so correct me if my timeline is wrong)

looks like more dominant tennis players than golfers in that timeframe, and consider how much longer golfers play compared to tennis players, so they had more chances to win more majors, yet didn't. tiger woods is rarer to golf than federer to tennis. we did have sampras, borg, laver not too long ago. golf only had nicklaus & he never did what tiger woods did, as far as dominating so thouroughly-4 majors in a row, winning multiple majors by what, 10 or more shots?

Golf is not a sport more like a competition, and Woods is not even close to the athlete Federer is.

yet tiger makes more prize money in one year than federer can win in several(did you see when espn flashed the career prize money comparison between tiger & federer? they are close in age, but Tiger almost tripled Federer's $) tiger is far more famous world-wide than federer.

i'm not a golf fan, but just dismissing a sport(or whatever you want to call it), when one sport has so much more prize money than the other, is a bit absurd. its kind of like dismissing nba/nfl when comparing it to a smaller sport like hockey or something.

and tiger almost single-handedly drove the prize money through the roof. I don't see Federer doing the same for tennis, which is struggling, judging by all the attempts to make it more popular-replay, roundrobin, & the many tournaments that are struggling to break even, etc.

Golf's popularity is based primarily on its popularity in the U.S. Since Tiger is an American superstar that is an easy solution. He is popular around the World too, but the only thing that matters is that he is so popular in the U.S, which is easier being an American who dominates which Americans love, since money in golf revolves all around popularity in the U.S.

Tennis is struggling in the U.S since Americans arent on top anymore. Roddick and Blake are contenders but left in the dust of Federer. Serena is still a contender in womens, but there is nobody else now that Venus is done as a contender and Davenport, Capriati, Seles are gone foor good, and the up and comers sucks. So of course tennis is going to struggle in the U.S, all that matters to Americans is seeing Americans on top unless it is a sex symbol(Kournikova, Sharapova). Since Federer is neither he is out of luck.

Hit the same shot over and over again...like a serve, forehand or backhand...really?!
No obstacles...like trees, lakes, sand...really?!
Practice the course...like hitting balls over and over again with a machine or partner...really?!

Anyone who's played both equally will say golf is tougher. A tennis court has the same dimensions...every time, everywhere. Try hitting a 2 inch ball using a club with a 3 inch face into a 4 inch hole 500yards away. Oh yeah, easy. You've obviously never played golf.

As for who is more dominant...my only reply is that they both dominate as much as one can dominate their respective sport. 2 different sports. No way to compare.

This is not an ignorant post at all. Most people I know agree with Iron. Golf is hardly an athletic sport. Your crazy if you think golf is harder then tennis. The tennis ball is always on a different angle, speed, height, depth and as far as I know a golf ball sits right there is front of you on a tee and never moves. If playing on a fairly high level, a tennis player player is always on the move where a golfer stands stationary when he hits the ball. There is no comparison as far as I am concerned. Oh, and I have played both golf and tennis.

Tennis is struggling in Europe and even in Australia, too. I just read that the tv ratings in Australia for the AO final went down, after they had decreased last year in contrast to Hewitts final in 2005.

I would say you are talking about 1 and 1a in terms of dominance they both make the pros in thier respective sports look silly. In my lifetime perhaps the most dominate athlete in his sport as a pro for at least a couple years would be Mike Tyson now that is crazy dominance when he was on his run.

In my lifetime perhaps the most dominate athlete in his sport as a pro for at least a couple years would be Mike Tyson now that is crazy dominance when he was on his run.

Very lucky to be in that era, possibly the weakest era in heavyweight history. Trevor Berbick & Michael Spinks are no Ali/Norton/Frazier/Foreman, let alone Lewis/Holyfield(& we saw how he matched up with them)

Tyson gets my vote for most overrated athlete of all-time. Was fun to see him knock out tomato cans, though.

My opinion on Golf has always caused some panic but it is not meant too. I have played both; I really enjoy golf; it is a fun game

Especially when stopping for a beer and hotdog after the first nine holes.

=

My underlying jist is comparing a world class athelete like Roger to a golfer. Golf is called a sport by many people, but I won't subscribe to it. I work out regulary, running 4 miles a week, lifting, playing tennis twice a week, I still try and play basketball as much as I can get away with, but golfing ?

Come on

Here is a world class golfer currently Ranked Number 79 on the PGA Tour:

Anyways. Not downplaying the skill involved in the game, but calling it sport would require actually carrying your own clubs while racing the other players between holes.